Pressuring selectively

The man in the print shop where journalists were making copies of the latest judgement in the Jacob Zuma legal marathon, probably spoke for many middle-class South Africans when he asked why Zuma is so desperate to stop investigators getting access to those documents in Mauritius.

‘What has he got to hide? To me that suggests he’s guilty.”

The uncomfortable answer is that guilt, for Zuma, is a relative concept. Zuma is getting his lawyers to raise every technical obstacle they can, not only because he wants to stay out of jail, not only because he still harbours political ambition, but also because he believes the apparatus of the state has been abused to target some individuals and pass over others who may be ‘more guilty”.

Zuma has not made this point very well — for a number of reasons.

One: getting around the playground morality of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right” requires communication skills that Zuma doesn’t seem to have access to.

Two: Zuma’s supporters have arguably also attempted to use state institutions to fight their battles, lending a hollow ring to some of his protestations.

Three: our law insulates the decisions to investigate and prosecute from all but the most expensive legal oversight; and information about why certain matters are not pursued or prosecuted is almost impossible to come by.

Four: to properly make the point that others are more guilty requires, firstly, an admission of guilt and, secondly, a comprehensive pointing of fingers that would commit the cardinal sin of bringing the ANC into massive disrepute. Such a strategy requires the approach of a political suicide bomber — a role currently ruled out by Zuma’s ambition and egotism.

But just because Zuma is a poor spokesman for his cause does not mean we should ignore it.

The ANC’s internal battles have, over the past 10 years, developed some characteristics that threaten hard-won democratic principles: notably, the use of the legal and security apparatus to intimidate or neutralise opponents and to insulate allies — often coupled with attempts to manipulate the media in the course of such battles.

The current travails of former transport minister Mac Maharaj offer a case in point. He is currently attempting to fend off an attempt by Scorpions Gauteng boss Gerrie Nel to get the Swiss authorities to grant access to a bank account held in his wife Zarina’s name.

This case is interesting, because it raises direct questions about why the National Prosecuting Authority pursues certain matters and not other, similar, cases.

According to City Press, two amounts, totalling about $211 000 (about R1,53-million), were deposited into Zarina’s account by a company controlled by Schabir Shaik in 1996 and 1997, around the time when Shaik was bidding for contracts with the department of transport. Maharaj clearly has some questions to answer, though he is also accusing the state of using unconstitutional means to ask them.

The pursuit of this case is in stark contrast to the fact that Nel appears to have abandoned pursuit of a similar request to Swiss banking authorities over a much larger sum of R100-million that state-owned arms company Denel paid out in ‘advance commissions” in a 1996-bid to secure a huge contract with the notoriously corrupt Saudi regime.

The probe into the payment was launched by the old Office for Serious Offences, which indicated it suspected that a portion of the commission could have flowed back to the ANC or to figures like late defence minister Joe Modise or Yusuf Surtee, who played a role in lobbying the Saudis, but denied receiving any money.

The Swiss complied with the request for access to the Swiss accounts through which the money flowed, but before investigators received the information, the Saudi agent who had represented Denel launched a Pretoria High Court bid to stop the process.

Nel, who had taken over the case, delivered a stout preliminary defence. Then, by mutual consent, the case was removed from the role. That was two years ago.

Attempts to get an explanation from Nel have been unsuccessful so far, but Maharaj might be forgiven for believing that the decision to abandon the case might have to do with the fact that Surtee has a relationship with both the presidency and the ANC that is far more complicated than his own.

Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy’s recent application for legal assistance from the British authorities in relation to the Zuma investigation, offers similar opportunities for contrasting diligence with foot-dragging. In this case, the Pretoria High Court allowed McCarthy’s well-founded bid to seek access to London accounts relating to payments to Jurgen Kogl, another businessman who claims to have lent Zuma money.

In his affidavit, McCarthy stated that the National Prosecuting Authority confirmed the principle of reciprocity: ‘It is well known that South Africa has acceded to requests for mutual legal assistance in the past, including from the United Kingdom, and I confirm that it will do so in the future.”

Such a declaration sits ill with the tardy and evasive response endured by the UK Serious Fraud Office in their quest for help in investigating other, less politically convenient allegations of arms deal corruption., which reach the top echelons of the ruling party.

Zuma’s legal battles mount

The state recently paid out R8-million towards Jacob Zuma’s defence against fraud and corruption charges. The bills — and the battles — are far from over.

The Mauritian authorities gave an earlier undertaking to Thint to seek permission first from their high court before handing over the documents.